herofandomcom-20200223-history
User blog:Emeraldblade95/Major PG Overhaul: PLEASE READ
Alright, the PG Proposal Process is really starting to get out of hand, even after numerous updates to the system in recent times. After receiving a serious message from one of our site's experienced administrators Queen Misery about how problematic PG Proposals are becoming, I hate to say this. but it's time for a major overhaul of the system...again. The Following Rules for PG Proposals will now be in place starting today: *Firstly, because the system tends to surge more often than Villains Wiki's counterpart, Only one proposal per user during every lineup, any further ones created during this time will be deleted on the spot. The ONLY EXCEPTION will be if and ONLY if a proposal(s) is extended for a voting period, and pushes one or more of the next lineup's proposals back to the next lineup to meet with the maximum limit of 10 proposals active and 10 proposals on reserve at once. **Yes, I'm aware that this is a much more stricter policy than Villains Wiki's limits, but even after the last set of updates were implemented, some users have still gone beyond the limit from time to time. *Secondly, the voting is becoming abused severely: a vast majority of users are putting short, generic votes such as "Yes, because this character is nice" or "No, because this character is mean", without putting any real thought into their votes. Because of this, short "X is nice, X is mean, I like X, I dislike X, etc" votes will NO LONGER be accepted in nominations. Many of our users, such as myself, Queen Misery, ThatScrewyDuck, and AustinDR tend to write detailed proposals about the heroes we wish to nominate for the privileged category, but seeing users not putting much effort into their votes and jumping to instant conclusions and posting comments just for a quick vote is both problemsome and to an extent insulting. It is one thing write a short vote with basic reasoning on why you support/oppose the nomination, but seeing users abuse this system with these short, "Yes, X is nice" type votes is really annoying. For now on, if you post such a vote, you will be asked to give a better explanation to the vote, otherwise, your vote WILL NOT COUNT in the final tally. *Thirdly, proposals that are poorly-written and/or are copy-pasted from information in said articles will Not be Tolerated, some of our users seem to be getting lazy with creating decently structured proposals (not that I'm trying offend anyone), often times put stuff like "X is nice, that's why I think they qualify); in some cases, they entirely leave out requisite sections (primarily the Corrupting Factors section to more or less sway favor in getting the nominated hero Approved). Like the "X is nice"-type votes, these types of proposals are both wasteful and unacceptable. Any proposals of these types found will be deleted on the spot, and unless corrected ASAP, repeated attempts will lead to a block for the user who created them. *Finally, I myself mentioned this in the latest blog, but I've going to say this agin on here as well: This is NOT ''PURE GOOD WIKI, we are an encyclopedia dedicated to the listing and descriptions of numerous heroes from various forms of fictional works. I've noticed a rise in the number of accounts created '''for the sole purpose of creating and voting on PG nominations (and to an extent, Heroes:HFH)' lately, and this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Anyone caught with these kinds of accounts will be removed from the site, NO EXCEPTIONS.. **Also keep in mind that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry in voting these proposals is unacceptable, and anyone caught doing so will be blocked for cheating. I am not trying to be mean or autocratic, but because of the abuse the PG Proposal system has been going though lately, it seems that these new measures have be put into place to help counter the aforementioned issues more effectively. Thank You, and Have a Nice Day. Category:Blog posts